The “Brexit” referendum

On December 2, 2015, in the wake of the attacks by Islamist terrorists in Paris on November 13, the House of Commons authorized air strikes by the British military on ISIL targets in Syria. The vote on the measure came after some 10 hours of debate. Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn freed members of his party to vote their conscience, and dozens of them broke ranks to join the Conservatives and others in voting for authorization, which passed 397–223.

At a summit meeting of the leaders of the member countries of the EU in Brussels in February 2016, the European Council announced agreement on reforms to British membership that had been requested by Cameron in an attempt to forestall British withdrawal (“Brexit”) from the EU. Although Cameron did not get everything that he had asked for in the proposal that he submitted to Donald Tusk, the president of the European Council, in November 2015, he won enough concessions to move forward on his promise of a referendum on continued British membership. In the face of considerable support within his own party for Brexit, Cameron nevertheless announced that he would campaign for remaining in the EU and scheduled the referendum for June 23, 2016.

Cameron was joined in the “Remain” effort by Corbyn. The “Leave” campaign was headed by former London mayor Boris Johnson, whom many saw as a rival for Cameron’s leadership of the Conservative Party, and Michael Gove, lord chancellor and secretary of state for justice in Cameron’s cabinet. Opinion polling indicated that the two sides were fairly evenly divided as the referendum approached, but in the event 52 percent of voters opted to leave the EU, making the United Kingdom the first country to ever do so. Cameron announced his intention to resign as prime minister by the time of the Conservative Party conference in October 2016 to allow his successor to negotiate the U.K. withdrawal under the terms of Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, which, when triggered, would open a two-year window for the exit process.

The resignation of Cameron, the rise of May, and a challenge to Corbyn’s leadership of Labour

Only days after the Brexit vote, the political drama surrounding Johnson’s pursuit of the Conservative leadership assumed what many observers identified as Shakespearean proportions as Gove removed his prominent support for Johnson’s candidacy, saying that Johnson was “not capable of…leading the party and the country in the way that I would have hoped.” In rapid fashion, a wounded Johnson removed himself from consideration. Gove then threw his hat into the small ring of leadership candidates that was then winnowed by successive votes by parliamentary Conservatives in early July to Home Secretary Theresa May and Energy Minister Andrea Leadsom, whose names were put to a vote by all party members with results due in September. Almost before that process started, Leadsom unexpectedly withdrew her name from consideration, and on July 11 the Conservative Party’s 1922 Committee, which had been steering the leadership contest, declared May the new party leader “with immediate effect.” On July 13 Cameron formally resigned, and May became the second woman in British history to serve as prime minister.

Meanwhile, Labour underwent its own leadership controversy as prominent party members, including Blair, took Corbyn to task for not mounting a more vigorous effort on behalf of the “Remain” campaign. No sooner had Blair made his criticism than he found himself in the crosshairs, with the release on July 5 of the so-called Chilcot Report, the findings of a seven-year inquiry into Britain’s involvement in the Iraq War, which was scathing in its condemnation of Blair’s handling of the war from the initial decision to join the United States in invading Iraq to the Blair government’s failure to plan and prepare for the postwar aftermath in Iraq. Nonetheless, a challenge was mounted to Corbyn’s leadership of the party that eventually resulted in a head-to-head contest between Corbyn and Owen Smith, the former shadow secretary of work and pensions. In an online vote of party faithful in September, Corbyn held on to the leadership by capturing some 62 percent of the vote against about 38 percent for Smith.

Triggering Article 50

In the meantime, May, who had opposed Brexit but came into office promising to see it to completion, led her government in cautious movement toward triggering Article 50. Her efforts experienced a setback in January 2017, however, when the Supreme Court upheld a November 2016 High Court ruling that prevented the prime minister from triggering Article 50 without first having gained approval from Parliament to do so. In February 2017 the House of Commons granted May that approval by a 498–114 vote, but the House of Lords created another roadblock in early March by adding a pair of amendments to the bill authorizing May to invoke Article 50. One guaranteed that EU passport holders residing in Britain would be permitted to remain, and the other sought a greater role for Parliament in the negotiations. Both amendments were overturned by the House of Commons later in March, and, before the end of the month, May formally submitted a letter to European Council Pres. Donald Tusk requesting the opening of the two-year window for talks on the details of British separation from the EU.

Against this backdrop, the Scottish Assembly backed First Minister Nicola Sturgeon’s call for a new referendum on independence for Scotland to be held before spring 2019 (the majority of Scottish voters had opposed leaving the EU in the Brexit referendum).

The Manchester arena bombing and London bridge attacks

In mid-April 2017 May called for a snap parliamentary election, saying that its results would provide stability and certainty for Britain during its Brexit negotiations and transition out of the EU. To hold an election ahead of the 2020 date mandated by the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, May needed to win two-thirds majority approval in the House of Commons. Corbyn welcomed a return to the polls, despite opinion polling that predicted big gains for the Conservatives, and, by a vote of 522 to 13 (with SNP members abstaining), the House of Commons approved a snap election for June 8.

The election campaign was temporarily suspended after 22 people were killed and dozens injured in a terrorist attack on the night of May 22 at a 21,000-capacity arena in Manchester following a concert by U.S. singer Ariana Grande. The attacker who detonated the homemade bomb that wrought the destruction also was killed in the blast. ISIL claimed responsibility for the attack, in which many of those who perished or were injured were children—teenaged and younger fans of the American pop star. It was the deadliest terrorist attack in Britain since the London bombings of 2005, in which more than 50 people were killed, and it followed an attack on Westminster Bridge in London on March 22 in which an attacker mowed down pedestrians with a car and then continued his assault on foot with a knife, taking five lives and injuring some 50 people before he was killed outside the Houses of Parliament by a security officer.

On June 3, five days before voters were to go to the polls, yet another terrorist attack unfolded in London. This time it occurred on London Bridge, where three attackers ran down victims with a vehicle before leaving it to menace others in nearby Borough Market with knives. Eight people were killed before police arrived, only eight minutes after the start of the incident, and shot and killed the attackers.

The snap election campaign

In addition to using the campaign to sell her version of “hard Brexit,” May sought to frame the election as a choice between her “strong and stable” leadership and that of Corbyn, who was characterized as an unreliable out-of-touch leftist extremist. However, Corbyn, once thought by many observers to be unelectable, proved to be an inspiring campaigner whose message of hope, compassion, and inclusiveness energized a new generation of Labour voters. May, on the other hand, often appeared uncomfortable, stiff, and uncertain on the campaign trail. One element of her manifesto—a proposal to pay for in-home social care of the elderly with government sales of their homes after their deaths, a plan loudly condemned by many as a “dementia tax”—brought widespread outrage that prompted her to quickly alter the proposal. Rather than appearing “strong and stable,” May, in the eyes of some observers, looked to be “weak and wobbly.”

The 2017 U.K. general election

When voters had their say on June 8, 2017, they handed the Conservatives a major setback. Rather than securing a mandate, May watched her party’s legislative majority disappear as it lost at least 12 seats in the House of Commons to fall to 318 seats while Labour gained at least 29 seats to surpass 260 seats in total. Both parties garnered more than 40 percent of the popular vote each in an election that witnessed a return to dominance by the two major parties. Led by Tim Farron, the Liberal Democrats, who had fared badly in the 2015 election, sought to reverse their fortunes by advocating another referendum on Brexit, and, while this proposal did not resonate for many voters, the party still gained four seats to reach a total of 12. Support for UKIP largely evaporated. Having nearly realized the goal of Brexit, many of those who had supported UKIP in previous elections were expected to vote for the Conservatives, but, in the event, it appeared that they instead were swayed by Corbyn’s vision. The Conservatives did, however, make big gains in Scotland, where the Scottish National Party fell from 56 seats to 35, in what was widely interpreted as a rebuke to Sturgeon and the SNP’s call for another referendum on Scottish independence.

Arguably the election’s biggest winner was Northern Ireland’s Democratic Unionist Party (DUP). Having increased its representation in the House of Commons from 8 to 10 seats, it found itself in the role of kingmaker when May enlisted its support to cling to power by forming a minority government (rather than seeking a formal coalition arrangement). With the support of the DUP on key votes, the Conservatives would be able to just barely surpass the 326-vote bar for a legislative majority.

The central task for May’s government remained arriving at a cohesive approach for its Brexit negotiations with the EU. That task was a daunting one, however, because wide disagreement persisted even within the Conservative Party, not just on a myriad of details related to the British proposal for separation but also on the broader issues involved.

The Grenfell Tower fire, a novichok attack in Salisbury, and air strikes on Syria

In June 2017 Brexit was pushed off the front pages by one of the worst disasters in recent British history: a fire in a multistory public housing residence (Grenfell Tower) in London claimed the lives of 72 individuals, many of whom were recent immigrants. The incident prompted a period of national soul-searching after it was revealed that months before the fire the building’s low-income residents had raised concerns about fire safety and complained that they were being treated like second-class citizens.

In March 2018 British national outrage was focused on Russia when a former Russian intelligence officer, who had acted as double agent for Britain, and his daughter were found unconscious in Salisbury, England. It was determined that the pair had been victims of a “novichok,” a complex nerve agent that had been developed by the Soviets. Although the Russian government denied having any involvement with the attack and British investigators were unable to prove that the nerve agent originated in Russia, the May government responded by expelling some two dozen Russian intelligence operatives who had been working in Britain under diplomatic cover.

In April Britain joined France and the United States in launching air strikes against targets in Syria after it was revealed that the regime of Syrian Pres. Bashar al-Assad had again used chemical weapons on its own people. Corbyn was critical of May for having ordered the strike without first consulting Parliament, but she countered that the action had to be undertaken without seeking parliamentary approval in order to protect the operation’s integrity. May also said that the strike was intended to prevent further suffering, and she characterized the decision as both right and legal.

The wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, the Chequers plan, and Boris Johnson’s resignation

In May 2018 Britain and much of the world stopped for a day to witness the royal wedding of Prince Harry to Meghan Markle—a divorced American actress, daughter of an African American mother and a white father—whose informal approachability and personal warmth recalled the much beloved “People’s Princess” Diana. The newlywed couple’s union reflected the changing social landscape of an increasingly multicultural Britain. Moreover, they seemed determined to modernize the monarchy and to connect it with the lives of everyday Britons.

In early July May summoned her cabinet to the prime minister’s country retreat, Chequers, determined to forge a consensus on the nuts and bolts of the government’s Brexit plan. Despite forceful opposition by the cabinet’s “hard” Brexiters, by the end of the marathon meeting a consensus seemed to have emerged around May’s “softer” approach, grounded in policies aimed at preserving economic ties with the EU. Just two days later, however, the government’s apparent harmony was disrupted by the resignation of Britain’s chief Brexit negotiator, David Davis, who complained that May’s plan gave up too much, too easily. The next day Johnson left his post as foreign secretary, writing in his letter of resignation that the dream of Brexit was dying, “suffocated by needless self-doubt.” Suddenly confronted with the possibility of a vote of confidence on her party leadership, May reportedly cautioned Conservatives to line up behind her Brexit plan or run the risk of losing power to a Corbyn-led Labour government.

EU agreement and Parliamentary opposition to May’s Brexit plan

On November 25 the leaders of the EU’s 27 other member countries formally agreed to the terms of a withdrawal deal that May claimed “delivered for the British people” and set the United Kingdom “on course for a prosperous future.” Under the plan Britain was to pay some $50 billion to the EU to satisfy its long-term financial obligations. Britain’s departure from the EU was to come in March 2019, but, according to the agreement, the U.K. would continue to abide by EU rules and regulations until at least December 2020 while negotiations continued on the details of the long-term relationship between the EU and the U.K.

The agreement, which was set to be debated and voted upon by the House of Commons in December, still faced strong opposition in Parliament, not only from Labour, the Liberal Democrats, the SNP, Plaid Cymru, and the DUP but also from dozens of Conservatives. At the same time, the call for holding another referendum on Brexit was growing louder, though May remained adamant that the will of the British people had already been expressed. A major sticking point for many of those who opposed the agreement was the so-called Northern Ireland backstop plan. Formulated to help maintain an open border between Northern Ireland and EU member Ireland after Brexit, the “backstop” stipulated that a legally binding customs arrangement between the EU and Northern Ireland would go into effect if the U.K. and the EU could not reach a long-term agreement by December 2020. Opponents of the backstop argued that it set up the potential for regulatory barriers between Northern Ireland and the rest of the U.K., effectively establishing a customs border down the Irish Sea.

Objections to the Irish backstop and a challenge to May’s leadership

The issue grew more heated in the first week of December after the government was forced to publish in full Attorney General Geoffrey Cox’s legal advice for the government on the Brexit agreement, which had initially been reported to Parliament in overview only. According to Cox, without agreement between Britain and the EU, the terms of the backstop plan could endure “indefinitely,” with the U.K. legally blocked from terminating the agreement without EU approval. This contentious issue was front and centre as the House of Commons began five days of debate leading up to a vote on the Brexit agreement that was scheduled for December 11. Facing the likelihood of a humiliating rejection of the agreement by the House of Commons, May dramatically interrupted the debate after three days, on December 10, and postponed the vote, pledging to seek new assurances from the EU regarding the backstop. The opposition responded by threatening to hold a vote of confidence and to call for an early election.

A challenge to May’s leadership was quickly mounted within the Conservative Party, and, after more than the required 15 percent of the parliamentary party (48 of 317 MPs) requested a vote on her leadership of the party, a secret ballot vote was held on December 12, 2018. May received the votes of 200 MPs, more than the 159 votes she needed to survive as leader. Although, according to Conservative Party rules, she could not be challenged as leader for another year, it remained to be seen whether May would still face pressure to relinquish power.

Parliamentary rejection of May’s plan, May’s survival of a confidence vote, and the Independent Group of breakaway MPs

Responding to May in a joint letter, European Council Pres. Donald Tusk and European Commission Pres. Jean-Claude Juncker indicated that, if the backstop had to be invoked, they would strive to limit its application to the “shortest possible period.” However, this pledge satisfied few of the agreement’s critics. When debate on the agreement resumed on January 9, Corbyn argued not only for rejection of the agreement but also for an early general election. On January 15 the agreement was overwhelmingly rejected by a vote of 432–202 (the worst defeat for a government initiative in modern British parliamentary history), and Corbyn tabled a vote of confidence in the government, which May survived the next day, 325–306, having held onto the support of the DUP and many Conservatives who had deserted her in the agreement vote.

The longer the issue of Brexit remained unsettled, the more it became the fulcrum on which British politics turned. Political pundits began to note that opinions on May’s proposed version of Brexit and Brexit in general cut across ideological lines. Both Labour and the Conservative Party were riven by internecine conflict over Brexit. In February eight MPs withdrew from the Labour Party, citing their disappointment in Corbyn’s leadership on the issue as well as concerns over alleged anti-Semitism within the party, a criticism that was at least partly tied to Corbyn’s sympathy for Palestinian concerns. Only days after their departure, three moderate Tories left the Conservative Party, protesting that it had been hijacked by the European Research Group, a faction of right-wing hard-line Brexiters whom the departing MPs accused of acting as a party within the party. Joining together as the Independent Group, these breakaway MPs from both parties began taking steps toward formally constituting a new political party. Meanwhile, in early March, Tom Watson, the deputy leader of the Labour Party, convened a meeting of Labour MPs and members of the House of Lords—many of whom felt that Corbyn had taken the party too far leftward—to consider an alternative vision for the party.

Parliament rejects May’s plan again

Against this backdrop, May continued negotiations with European leaders in an effort to win concessions that would garner wider support within Parliament than the terms of her earlier, shunned Brexit plan did. On the eve of a scheduled meaningful vote in the House of Commons on her revised plan, May secured new promises of cooperation on the backstop plan from EU leaders. A “joint legally binding instrument” was agreed to under which Britain could initiate a “formal dispute” with the EU if the EU were to attempt to keep Britain bound to the backstop plan indefinitely. A “joint statement” was also issued that committed the U.K. and the EU to arriving at a replacement for the backstop plan by December 2020. Finally, the U.K. put forth a “unilateral declaration” stressing that there was nothing to prevent Britain from abandoning the backstop if negotiations on an alternative arrangement with the EU were to collapse without the prospect of resolution.

In advance of the vote in Parliament, Attorney General Cox issued his opinion that while the new assurances reduced the risk of the U.K.’s being indefinitely confined by the backstop agreement, they did not fundamentally change the agreement’s legal status. In the vote on March 12, the House of Commons once again rejected May’s plan, though by a smaller margin than its earlier defeat, 391–242. The next day the House of Commons voted 312–308 against leaving the EU without a deal in place. On March 14, by just two votes, May survived a vote that would have taken control of Brexit away from her and handed it to Parliament. In a letter to EU leaders on March 20, she requested that the date of Britain’s departure from the EU be delayed until June 30. In response the EU announced its willingness to extend the Brexit deadline until May 22 but only if Parliament had accepted May’s withdrawal plan by the week of March 24.

“Indicative votes,” May’s pledge to resign, a third defeat for her plan, and a new deadline

Hundreds of thousands of demonstrators took to the streets of London on March 23 to demand that another referendum on Brexit be held. On March 25 the House of Commons voted 329–302 to usurp control of Parliament’s agenda from the government in order to hold “indicative votes” on alternative proposals to May’s plan. Eight of those proposals were put to a vote on March 27, but none was able to gain the support of the majority, though a plan to seek to create a “permanent and comprehensive U.K.-wide customs union with the EU” came close, falling sort by just six votes.

Also on March 27, May pledged to resign as party leader and prime minister if the House of Commons were to approve her plan, a gambit that won support from some “hard Brexit” opponents of the plan. On March 29, owing to an antique procedural rule invoked by Speaker of the House John Bercow, only the withdrawal agreement portion of May’s plan was voted upon by the House of Commons (excluded was the “political declaration” that addressed what the U.K. and EU expected of their long-term relationship). Although the vote was closer than the previous two (286 in support, 344 in opposition), the plan once again went down in defeat. The U.K. now had until April 12 to decide whether it would leave the EU without an agreement on that day or request a longer delay that would require it to participate in elections for the European Parliament. May asked the EU to push back the deadline for Brexit until June 30, and on April 11 the European Council announced that it was granting the U.K. a “flexible extension” until October 31.

Shortly thereafter, in response to the Conservative Party’s seeming inability to position the country to leave the EU, Nigel Farage launched the Brexit Party. It proved to be a big winner in the elections for the European Parliament in May, capturing about 31 percent of the vote. The next closest finisher was the Liberal Democrats, with about 20 percent of the vote, while Labour claimed some 14 percent and the Conservatives only about 9 percent.

Having failed to garner sufficient support from Conservatives for her exit plan, May entered discussions with Labour leaders on a possible compromise, but these too proved fruitless. When May responded to that disappointment by proposing a new version of the plan that included a temporary customs relationship with the EU and a pledge to hold a parliamentary vote on whether to stage another referendum on Brexit, her cabinet revolted. Isolated as never before, the prime minister announced on May 24 that she would step down as leader of the Conservative Party on June 7 but would remain as caretaker premier until her party had chosen her successor.

Boris Johnson’s ascent, the December 2019 snap election, and Brexit

After a series of votes by the parliamentary Conservative Party winnowed a list of 10 candidates to 2, Boris Johnson and Jeremy Hunt stood in an election in which all of the party’s roughly 160,000 members were eligible to vote. Johnson took some 66 percent of that vote to assume the leadership. He officially replaced May as prime minister on July 24, 2019. Although he had promised to take the United Kingdom out of the EU without an exit agreement if the deal May had negotiated was not changed to his liking, Johnson faced widespread opposition (even within his own party) to his advocacy of no-deal Brexit. Political maneuvering by the new prime minister (including proroguing Parliament just weeks before October 31, the revised departure deadline) was met with forceful legislative countermeasures by those opposed to leaving the EU without an agreement in place. A vote of the House of Commons in early September forced Johnson to request a delay of the British withdrawal from the EU until January 31, 2020, even though on October 22 the House approved, in principle, the agreement that Johnson had negotiated, replacing the backstop with a plan to keep Northern Ireland aligned with the EU for at least four years from the end of the transition period.

Johnson repeatedly tried and failed to call a snap election that he hoped would secure a mandate for his vision of Brexit. Because the election would fall outside the five-year term stipulated by the Fixed Terms of Parliament Act, it required approval by two-thirds of the House of Commons to be held, meaning that it needed support from the opposition, which was denied. After no-deal Brexit was blocked, however, Corbyn was willing to let voters once again decide the fate of Brexit, and an election was scheduled for December 12, 2019. Preelection opinion polling indicated a likely win for the Conservatives, but when the results were in, Johnson’s party had recorded its most decisive victory since 1987, adding 48 seats to secure a solid Parliamentary majority of 365 seats. The stage was set for the realization of Johnson’s version of Brexit, which was to take place at 11:00 pm London time on January 31, when the United Kingdom formally would withdraw from the European Union.

In April 2020 Sir Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary and a former director of public prosecutions, replaced Corbyn as Labour leader. At the end of October Corbyn was suspended from the party in response to his somewhat dismissive reaction to the release of the greatly anticipated report on anti-Semitism within the Labour Party by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission. His suspension immediately disrupted the Labour Party, prompting denunciations of that action by Corbyn’s leftist supporters.

Although Britain’s formal withdrawal from the EU had been accomplished, final details relating to a new trade deal between the U.K. and the EU remained to be resolved, and the December 31, 2020, deadline for that resolution was only barely met on December 24. The resultant 2,000-page agreement clarified that there would be no limits or taxes on goods sold between U.K. and EU parties; however, an extensive regimen of paperwork for such transactions and transport of goods was put in place. The freedom to work and live between the U.K. and the EU became a thing of the past.

The coronavirus pandemic

As it was in most of the rest of the world, life in the U.K. was turned upside down in 2020 by the onset of the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 global pandemic, which had originated in China, where the first cases were reported in December 2019. Because the Johnson government’s key scientific advisers had embraced the controversial theory that the best way to limit the long-term effects of the pandemic was to allow the virus to spread naturally and thus generate “herd immunity,” Britain initially did not adopt the kind of aggressive measures to combat the pandemic that had been undertaken in much of the rest of the world. By mid-March 2020, however, the government had radically shifted gears as COVID-19, the potentially deadly disease caused by the virus, began spreading rapidly in Britain. Social-distancing and mask-wearing requirements were imposed, as was a lockdown that included the closing of schools, pubs, restaurants, and other businesses.

In late March Prime Minister Johnson contracted the virus and had to be hospitalized, spending three nights in an intensive care unit when his life was in jeopardy. While he was incapacitated, Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab performed Johnson’s duties. Over the coming year, Johnson would initiate and rescind stay-at-home orders that varied by region as the spread of the disease came in waves. Although the government’s initial response to the pandemic had been slow and unsteady, British scientists, aided by government funding, made historically rapid advances in developing an effective vaccine. Having become the first country to approve and deploy the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, Britain began rolling out a national immunization program in December 2020. Nevertheless, by March 2021 the U.K. had suffered about 126,000 COVID-related deaths, more than all but four other countries—the United States, Brazil, Mexico, and India. The British predicament had been complicated by the emergence in the U.K. of a new, more easily transmissible variant of the disease (B.1.1.7) in September 2020.

“Partygate”

In late November 2021 it began to be reported that members of Johnson’s cabinet and staff, as well as the prime minister himself, had attended parties earlier in the pandemic that violated prohibitions on social gatherings established by the government. The resulting “Partygate” scandal involved both the alleged violations and Johnson’s initial insistence that the government’s pandemic-related guidelines had been “followed at all times.” After reports came to light of an increasing number of illegal social gatherings at Downing Street during the lockdowns in 2020 and 2021, Johnson apologized for having attended one such party at which drinks were served. In addition to the alleged violations of pandemic-related rules, a picture of excessive workplace drinking in the prime minister’s orbit began to take shape. Moreover, it appeared that Johnson had misled Parliament with his claim that no pandemic-related rules had been broken. Historically, deceiving Parliament was an offense that called for resignation.

A report on the affair by senior civil servant Sue Gray was delivered to Parliament in late January 2022. Although it was truncated and heavily redacted to avoid compromising the investigation that had been undertaken by the London Metropolitan Police into a number of gatherings, the report said that “there were failures of leadership and judgment by different parts of No. 10 and the Cabinet Office at different times” and that “some of the events should not have been allowed to take place” whereas “other events should not have been allowed to develop as they did.” Despite a renewed apology to Parliament by Johnson, some Conservatives joined members of the opposition in calling for his resignation. Johnson’s grip on power would remain precarious—especially after the police investigation led to him being fined in April for his transgressions of pandemic-related rules. However, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on February 24 served to forestall efforts to remove Johnson from office. Many in Britain appeared to believe that the moment of existential crisis for Europe brought on by Russia’s aggression was not the time for a change of leadership.

Further scandal and Johnson’s resignation

Nevertheless, by early June a sufficient number of Conservative MPs had written to the party’s 1922 Committee requesting the prime minister’s resignation that a vote of confidence in his leadership of the party was forced. To retain his position, Johnson needed to have his leadership affirmed by at least 180 of the party’s 359 members of the House of Commons. When the secret ballots were counted, 211 MPs had voted in support of Johnson, but the 148 MPs who had voted against him represented a larger percentage of the party’s presence in the House of Commons than did the 133 MPs who had rejected Theresa May’s leadership in the 2018 vote of confidence that preceded her eventual resignation.

Only weeks later Johnson’s uncanny ability to survive scandal finally deserted him when his apparent prevarication regarding his awareness of allegations of sexual misconduct against a senior Conservative Party official shattered his support within the party and forced him to step down. Johnson tendered his immediate resignation as party leader on July 7, 2022. He announced that he would remain as prime minister until the Conservatives had chosen a new leader.

Ascent to office

The parliamentary party (sitting Conservative MPs) then undertook a series of votes that incrementally winnowed the field of candidates for the leadership from eight to two, Foreign Secretary Liz Truss and former chancellor of the Exchequer Rishi Sunak, whose names were submitted for a vote by the party’s whole membership. When the results of that election were reported on September 5, Truss emerged as the winner. The next day she became the third woman ever to serve as Britain’s prime minister. In a break with tradition, Truss received her official appointment from Elizabeth II at Balmoral Castle rather than at Buckingham Palace out of concern for the queen’s increasingly frail health, which had limited Elizabeth’s participation in June in the Platinum Jubilee, a four-day celebration of her 70-year reign.

The death of Elizabeth II

On September 8 Britain and the world were shocked by the news of the queen’s death. Truss called Elizabeth “the rock on which modern Britain was built.” In an address to the nation the following day, the new king, Charles III, said:

Queen Elizabeth’s was a life well lived; a promise with destiny kept and she is mourned most deeply in her passing…. As the Queen herself did with such unswerving devotion, I too now solemnly pledge myself, throughout the remaining time God grants me, to uphold the Constitutional principles at the heart of our nation. And wherever you may live in the United Kingdom, or in the Realms and territories across the world, and whatever may be your background or beliefs, I shall endeavour to serve you with loyalty, respect and love, as I have throughout my life.

Some 10 days of national mourning followed that led to the queen lying in state in Westminster Hall. Mourners stood in a line that stretched for miles to view her coffin. A sombre funeral ceremony, attended by an estimated 100 heads of foreign governments, was held at Westminster Abbey on September 19.

Abrupt resignation

Liz Truss had come into office believing that she had a mandate to carry out a “low taxes, high growth” economic plan. However, the financial markets panicked at the prospect of the budget deficit likely to result from Truss’s proposed combination of unfunded £45 billion ($50 billion) tax cuts and a two-year cap on energy prices (in response to high energy costs facing Britons as a result of sanctions imposed on natural gas supplier Russia). The Bank of England was forced to intervene to stabilize the markets after the value of the pound nose-dived, mortgage rates rose, and the cost of U.K. government borrowing climbed. Responding to the furor that followed, on October 14 Truss sacked Chancellor of the Exchequer Kwasi Kwarteng, among her closest political allies, and replaced him with former foreign secretary Jeremy Hunt. Almost immediately Hunt began undoing Truss’s signature economic plan, reducing the period for the energy price cap to six months and revoking the tax cuts. Truss apologized for the “mistakes” she had made, but a growing number of Conservative MPs called for her to resign, and, amid withering support for her, on October 20 Truss announced that she was stepping down as party leader but would remain prime minister until the Conservatives will have chosen her successor.